Compo I'd like to see: 24-105 vs primes

To further the debate on primes versus zooms, I'd like to see a direct side-by-side comparison of a selection of photos comparing the 24-105L to assorted primes in the same range. For example -

24mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.8

Who's up to the task? If I get a chance later today I can take a go a the 50mm.

Thanks

Though the L zoom lens have narrowed the IQ gap between themselves and the primes considerably, the primes are still going to be a better choice at whichever fixed focal length and aperture you are comparing them at.

Prove it!

You can always go to the link posted below and compare shots of the ISO chart. Even though it's just a dumb black and white chart you can learn a lot about the lens behavior at different settings. I have run my four lenses through it and the comparison mirrors the differences of "real world" images that I have taken.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

Obviously though, that comparison does not illustrate ALL aspects of lens performance. Mostly contrast, resolution and aberration at different parts of frame. Stuff like bokeh, flare etc won't be evident.

The one thing a prime will always have over a zoom is aperture. All the primes you listed are 1 to 3 stops faster than your 24-105.

The only zoom lens that rivals a typical prime in sharpness is the newer 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II. Sure the 24-105 f/4 is a great lens as is the 24-70 f/2.8, but if I had a choice of shooting with a prime in those f/4 or f/2.8 apertures and within those focal lengths I'd reach for the prime every time. The primes would all have an advantage of stopping down a bit and really getting into their sweet zones for sharpness where as shooting wide open on a zoom usually doesn't yield optimal results.

Now if your talking shooting into the f/8 - f/11 apertures, heck I'll throw in my efs 18-55 f/3.5 - f/5.6 kit lens and it will still provide good results.

i can produce better & prefer photo's from my 50/1.4 than my 24-105L at 50mm

i can produce better & prefer photo's from my 85/1.8 than my 24-105L at 85mm

I had 3 L test last week, and the 24-105L is the worse of all Ls; the tests are here if you want to look at:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1067481

I can do a test Vs 85L II, 100mmL and 28-300L. I believe that 24-105L can only beat the 28-300L; So, I don't have the motivation.

sloanbj wrote in post #12811617
To further the debate on primes versus zooms, I'd like to see a direct side-by-side comparison of a selection of photos comparing the 24-105L to assorted primes in the same range. For example -

24mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.8

Who's up to the task? If I get a chance later today I can take a go a the 50mm.

Thanks

I had compared the 24. 1.4 II and the 70-200 f/4 IS at 100mm and very casually the 50mm 1.4 to it. Most of my attention was on the 24 1.4 II vs 24-105 though. I don't have any photos left from that, long ago deleted. Only some from the Tamron 28-75 vs 24 1.4 test.

The 24 1.4 II seemed a heck of a lot better to me. It was sharper aperture for aperture across the entire frame and very considerably so anywhere at all near the edges, yes even stopped down to f/8-f/11 (my experience has NOT been that every lens is the same at f/8 +). It's possible that the two 24-105 L I tried were not great copies, since some people have since sworn by the lens and say I must've had bad copies but I don't know it seems like 1 in 100 people get one that does well a the edges and how many darn copies I am supposed to give that lens a chance with? I sold the first one within a week! And returned the second copy after a day. I was kind of disgusted at $1000 for average sharpness. Tamron $28-75 I got for $285 was sharper (although worse color/contrast) and on APS-, where they overlapped, tamron 17-50 was better too. And I'm pretty sure my 17-40L, before I sold it after getting the Tamron 17-50, had been better at 24-40mm than the 24-105 as well.

I don't really recall the 50 1.4 vs the 24-105, I didn't pay attention to that much. The 50mm is pretty sharp corner to corner by f/4 so not eay to beat for sharpness but I forget the contrast/color.

The f/4 IS at 100mm looked better to me.

Thorrulz wrote in post #12813912
The only zoom lens that rivals a typical prime in sharpness is the newer 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II.

Have you ever used the Contax-Zeiss 35-70? It rivals primes for sharpness, but it lacks a fast aperture (constant f/3.4). It's a fantastic lens for landscape. It makes me want to throw my 24-105L into a gully.